Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I recently applied for a Sure Start Maternnity Grant and received a decision from the DWP today, declining my eligibility; under the basis that there is another child (under 16) in my family/ household. My situation is this,  I am co-habitating with my partner/ father of my new/ first baby.  Within the last 10 months, my partner's daughter from previous relationship (age 13) had to be removed from her mothers care, owing to domestic violence issues.  The family Courts are still dealing with the situation as her mother is contesting her daughter residing with us, as she wants her to return to her home/ care - so obviously there is Social Sevices involved etc. Anyway, prior to this situation arising, my partners daughter, had always resided with her mother and my partner, had regular acess etc. I have cited the Sure Start Maternity Grant Act/ Policy and the more recently published 'Restricting payment of the SSMG to first child only' -  I have to say, both have left me further confused as if you read the 'restricting payment policy/ in one paragraph, it states that in a situation where a woman has her first child and another child under 16, residing in same household/ family and is from the partners 'previous relationship' this would be considered a 'first child' and will be eligible for payment of grant. If however, the reverse applies (ie: it is the 'father/ partner' first child, then payment would not be made.   This seems pretty straightforward, but then the policy starts to contradict itself and goes on to define, the only exception for payment to more than one child, is in the case of the child living in same household, is not from partner.  Or if you are adopting a child under 1 year old/ special guardianship etc, then you are eligible. It does not offer the scenario of any childd in household under 16, from partner previous relationship being acceptable?   Can anybody please clarify this point please???  I want to challenge the decision/ request a Mandatory Reconsideration - but wanted to include my reasoning/ the point of law they have not applied correctly?   Any help advice / greatly appreciated.   thank you 
    • you don't respond LInk DCA ...the biggest fleecers there ever were know full well that: Barclaycard rarely even have enforceable CCa's for even debts from the last 10yrs, let alone one from the 1990's.!! not a chance!!   ignore until/unless you ever get a letter of claim. and read my red bits below if you aren't on a tablet or mobile.   dx
    • Looks like the 2014 TCE was ignored, or disregarded then as unless the scenario hinted at by UB is followed as in point the camera at the TV now show the serial number on the back and it is listed, there is no way that CGA could be compliant.  Don't think it could be in reality unless EA sees the goods in situ and lists them correctly. Might be big stink if there was a forced entry removal after a Virtual CGA.
    • asking for Trump pardons now aren't they
    • ROFL https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/leave-eu-brexit-website-arron-banks-b1788267.html
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 807 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

just had a letter from my current Gas/Electricity suppliers EBICO, saying that because Government will introduce a price cap on variable/default tariffs from end of 2018, that my current ZERO tariff (no standing charge) will come to an end. This will mean for my supply, that I will see an increase of about £100 a year.

 

EBICO say that because of the Goverment price cap, the current tariff they provide to me, will become commercially unsustainable.

 

I have done a few calculations and if I switch suppliers, I can limit the increase to about £50 a year, moving to a supplier that does not charge for cancelling early. In the Spring of 2019, I can then look again and see if it is worth switching again.

 

 

Thought I would post this, as from memory there are a number of people who post on CAG that were with EBICO. Also going into Winter, with many suppliers currently changing tariffs, it may be worth people shopping around to see if they can save money.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

my supplier is cranking up my bill by 7% this month, the second increase this year. Why has the standing charge been increased as well? I accept that oil and gas cost more than 6 months ago but the cables delivering it havent suddenly transformed into gold from copper. Also I am supposed to be 100% green energy on the leccy so when did the sunshine and wind suddenly get more expensive?

My problem is I cant get a proper comparison from the popular sites becuase the increases havent taken effect yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...